- 23 -
Here, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency
on October 14, 1992, with respect to his 1985 taxable year, and
petitioner instituted a case for redetermination in this Court.
That case was concluded without trial by entry of a stipulated
decision on December 20, 1995. The decision provided that there
was “no deficiency in income tax due from, nor overpayment due
to, the petitioner for the taxable year 1985”.
Now, however, petitioner in essence seeks to argue that he
overpaid his taxes for 1985. If petitioner’s reported liability
of $187,911 was never validly assessed, then the taxes would not,
as a legal matter, be considered owed by or due from petitioner.
As a result, the $66,747 paid by petitioner for 1985 through
withholding and credited to that liability would constitute an
overpayment. For tax purposes, “overpayment” is typically
defined in its usual sense as “any payment in excess of that
which is properly due.” Jones v. Liberty Glass Co., 332 U.S.
524, 531 (1947); see also Estate of Smith v. Commissioner, 123
T.C. 15, 21 (2004). Petitioner could have made this challenge
during the earlier Tax Court proceeding and did not do so. This
Court has jurisdiction to determine overpayments in the context
of deficiency proceedings, and the cause of action or claim in a
deficiency proceeding thus encompasses the amount of tax, if any,
that a party is required to pay for the taxable period under
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011